Comments

Dan: Well, I haven’t seen the erudition yet, but if you’re telling me the persona doesn’t do justice to the real you, then tell you what – just assume my responses are directed to the persona, since that’s all I’ve got to go on.

Terry Rudden; Reverend Phelps huh? How very lefty/liberal of you to say so…
A Honey Badger? Pound for pound the most ferocious animal on the planet, bar none. You don’t ever want to f**k with one of them! And flattery will get you nowhere…
But calling me a “dude” is stooping to the lowest of the low! How dare you flay me with an insult so horrible that if someone were to call me a “dude” to my face I’d have to bitch slap them where they stood! (In my world calling someone a dude is a grave insult!)
Given your response I guess I touched some kind of nerve…but in reality I ain’t runnin’ fer public office, so I don’t have to please anybody. If you don’t like my over-the-top, politically incorrect hyperbole – and apparent erudition – well, you don’t have to read it and if you don’t want to get your lefty/liberal panties all twisted up in a knot, you certainly don’t have to respond to it.
Personally I like the forum here, even some of the lefty/liberals that debate…

Dan, I don’t know you. The “person” I know is the voice you use to write in social media. And if you choose to write like the offspring of the late Reverend Phelps and a rabid honey badger, then sorry, dude, but that’s only persona I have to respond to.

“I enjoy the debates therebel has posted but have been distressed by the vitriolic condemnation of whoever plays Devil’s advocate, as I have been distressed to see the vitriol expressed against ordinary free-speech loving rebels who post alternative views here.”
You are kidding ,right?

Total utter garbage is what Wynne is proposing for children. It will be struck down eventually. Wynne (and the lgbt) will not win. If, as the old hag desires, this does pass into being, there will be nothing but constant trouble over it and eventually it will be thrown out anyway. Either way it’s going down. What a waste of tax payers money and time. This is a perfectly good reason to have this sexually twisted moron impeached.

Terry, I love Dan’s writing style. So erudite. So frank. So sometimes over the top with politically incorrent and earnestly expressed hyperbole. But Dan’s comments often make me laugh out loud, so refreshingly outspoken they are, always in complex prose. And I like to laugh.

In another lifetime Dan called me a feminazi. But I have forgiven him.

Dan, I’m not sure all homosexuals make the lifestyle choices they do just for “a cheap physical thrill”.

Some, I understand, do it to victimize, to exploit individuals with low self esteem, to hurt them. But not all are promiscuous.

Years ago, when I guess I didn’t understand much about it, a lesbian explained to me that the difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual was that homosexuals fall in love with others of the same sex whereas heterosexuals fall in love with others of the opposite sex.

The grade 7 module of the new sex-ed curriculum teaches that while some people engage in anal sex, it is risky. It can give those who engage in it life-compromising and life-restricting diseases. It teaches children that they ahould abstain from anal sex. No word of a lie. Some 12 and 13 year old children will have already been told by other, maybe older children that anal sex feels good. Some will even have been pressured to do it. They may have been told it is safe. The sex-ed curriculum will disabuse them of that false belief. They are advised it is risky and advised to abstain.

I do not appreciate the appeal of anal sex. But people have told me it feels good. Not for me. I won’t even let a doctor scope me. Sorry if that’s too much information. :-)

Terry Rudden; Ya got me. I was using hyperbole to express frustration, anger, resentment and yes fear of where my country is being taken to, by whom and why. I was ‘speaking’ louder than normal because the persecution and prosecution of Christians and other right minded folk for daring to speak out about not wanting their basic religious rights surrendered for them, by delusional, evil or insane people. No apologies…
As for your question, “But you’re not homophobic? You love gays as yourself?” See my response to Joan.
If the ideological shoe box fits, wear it…

JOAN ABERNETHY"
“Dan … just curious … do you loathe gays?”
No. And I refer you to my response to Terry Rudden’s response to Gail…as to why.
“I suspect you do not. I suspect you love them as you love yourself. "
Yes. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
“…you have been quite clear you respect her right to make the personal, private lifestyle choices she has without being viciously attacked for them.”
Correct. “personal” and “private”. Period.
In fact Joan, I feel pity for homosexuals. So willing to give up so much for choosing such a cheap physical thrill…
The enablers of the homosexual agenda? Yeah, well enjoy your swim in the Lake of Fire for Eternity…
Or if the wrath of God doesn’t get to you ( you, the enablers of the homosexual agenda) what goes around comes around, you will have earned your fate…

Dan, I’m confused. You said: "“Homosexuals and communists! All enemies of Canada! The city missed a great opportunity to round up all those undesirables and throw them all in a looney bin – or deport them…anywhere! I can’t wait for the Big One to come along and flush that den of degenerates, that filthy stink-pit of Sodom and Gomorrah into the ocean! And good riddance…” But you’re not homophobic? You love gays as yourself?

Lorraine, you are right. Don’t you think our enemies know that and use it against us?

For example, the “feminists” who promote racial and gender segregation based on racial and gender supremacy are not feminists at all, but enemy-funded mouthpieces used by our enemies to motivate hatred of women in our society, to justify the enemy’s interests in denying equal gender and colour rights to all. Segregation of boys and girls in education. Appeals to Christians and Jews to join with them to condemn gays and to claw back their legal equity rights.

Most gay people do not want to harm heterosexuals or heterosexuality in our society. But a few are funded by enemies of equity to aggressively target Christians but never Muslims for their intolerance of equity rights in the west. That is to mobilize bias against gender equity, specifically against gays.

So far, the enemy’s agenda to erode freedom in our society has been moderately successful.

karhleen Wynne did not call everyone who opposes her sex-ed curriculum “homophobic”. She said she had no doubt some who oppose her are motivated by homophobia. I have seen some of the comments and while I would not call them “homophobic” but rather bigoted hate attacks on her personal and private lifestyle, I agree with her that some opponents are motivated by hatred not reasoned and informed opposition to the new changes to the sex-ed curriculum.

I am quite certain based on what I know about your views that Kathleen Wynne would not call you either a homophobe or a bigot because you have been quite clear you respect her right to make the personal, private lifestyle choices she has without being viciously attacked for them.

But I’d like to hear it from you, so I don’t make the wrong assumption.

I can only speak from personal experience. The homosexuals and lesbians I know were never discriminated against in my presence or I would not have remained silent. On the other hand, the militancy, “prideful” ones who cannot let people do what they think is right without being discriminated against to the point that they are beat up, others have lost their honest businesses has drawn a huge wedge in society pitting one person against another unmercifully. It is dividing our society at a time when unity would be advantageous against any “real” enemies.

Ron, Terry is right. We sparred on very opposite sides of issues over at the old sunnewsnetwork.ca but like Terry, I respect – and occasionally learn something valuable – from a well-informed, well-reasoned opponent opinion.

I enjoy the debates therebel has posted but have been distressed by the vitriolic condemnation of whoever plays Devil’s advocate, as I have been distressed to see the vitriol expressed against ordinary free-speech loving rebels who post alternative views here.

TERRYRUDDEN
“…Hi, Gail.
My comment regarding the use of the word “homophobic” was in response to Dan Mancuso, who seemed to find it objectionable. I provided a rather extreme example of Dan’s apparent loathing of gays to suggest that Premiere Wynn is, in some cases, correct in her observation…”
“Objectionable”?, Maybe you could explain to me why a man wouldn’t be offended or object to having an inappropriate and inaccurate label affixed to him, when he stands up to express his God given right to petition the government and speak his mind – the purpose of that ‘demonizing label’ being, to shut him up, shut him down, and marginalize him? And that from a person in a position of some power in government and who is a self avowed lesbian and therefore carries a huge bias! It’s not about ‘no I’m not you are’, it’s about throwing their evil BS back in their faces, in no uncertain terms!
Oh, and using the typical and morally bankrupt liberal tactic of accusing me of an “apparent loathing of gays” because I object to the very destructive forcing of the normalization of the homosexual agenda on my country, is ineffective with me, as you can see…what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, it’s not my business and I don’t want to know. It is between them and God!BUT! If you choose to bring that sickness out into public, realistically you must expect a challenge and ridicule. And when you force that agenda on our children, and on us through the MSM and through cowardly politicians who won’t stand up against the agenda for fear of being labeled politically incorrect, expect pitch forks and burning torches at some point!
People on the correct ‘side’ are drawing lines in the sand…what are you doing?

Ron: I don’t think that Joan and I actually agree about the very much socially or politically – she’s very conservative, I’m very liberal. However, we both share a respect for logic, fact vs. extrapolation, and intelligent debate as opposed to ham-fisted attempts to squeeze opponents into tiny, simple-minded ideological boxes.

Ron, Ezra does not claim his views on this subject are fact. Read the headline. It begins with “If”. If sex ed issue is a wedge, then … and if it is not, then … Ezra is far smarter than you give him credit for.

JOANABERNETHY, you tell me, “if you hope to pin me down with a yes or no response, you will be disappointed”. Not really disappointed Joan, as much as I expected as much that you would not give a clear answer to some straightforward questions. You are pretty good at bobbing and weaving. Nonetheless, now pretty clear, from what you say below and in many other previous posts, that you are defender of Wynne’s sex-ed program or as I said previously, “an apologist for this perverse sex-ed program”. Interesting how you put yourself forward as being the adjudicator of what is “fact” or not. I’ll defer to Ezra’s perspective on this issue. With respect to “Nice try to paint me as a pedophile, Ron, but you failed”, I say nice try Joan at putting words into my mouth, but, you failed! With respect to your demand that I should apologize “for trying to tar (your) character with the worst slur there is” for simply asking some pretty clear straightforward questions so to get clarification on which “side of the wedge” you fall, you are right, don’t bother holding your breath. You seem to play that card a lot of self-righteously accusing others of defaming you. Joan, do you suffer from a persecution complex? Glad that you found your soul mate in Terry Rudden.

Ron Voss – if you hope to pin me down with a yes or no response, you will be disappointed.

First of all, Kathleen’s claim that the sex-ed debate will be a wedge issue in this year’s federal election is simply a repeat of what Trudeau’s team already said, that the sex-ed curriculum debate will be relied on to negatively affect the Federal Liberals. I disagree. I think Trudeau is dropping in the polls because of his own incompetence not because of any provincial issue.

As there is no wedge issue, it can’t be anyone’s fault. Nor can I stand on the right or wrong side of something that doesn’t exist.

Kathleen surprised parents unaware of the history of sex education in Ontario schools. The sex-ed curriculum is not new; the controversy is over changes to an already existing sex-ed curriculum.

There is no doubt some parents felt ambushed by the news because they were unaware of current events not well reported by media.

Did Kathleen us force against parents that oppose her new sex-ed curriculum? No. She intends to use her majority government to implement the changes to the sex-ed curriculum. As is her right.

Kathleen made a mistake by not investing in an online consultation with parents about the changes she has made. It would have gone a long way to clarify for parents just what the changes are, why they are being made, and to give parents an opportunity to feel involved.

Kathleen is also wrong to complain about homophobia. While it is undoubtedly true that some who oppose her changes have levied vile hatred against her personally attacking her homosexuality, she ought to understand that as premier, she has all the power and is not, therefore, the victim. She may be a target of considerable hatred but she must expect that as a leader and not counter-accuse.

Ron, the Ontario sex-ed curriculum is neither new nor extreme. That is fact.

Teaching children correct anatomical English language skills is not new nor is introducing the correct English terms for human genitalia extreme. It gives kids the skills to understand what it means, for example, when the teacher or police explain it that cutting girls’ labia and clitoris is illegal.

What Ezra actually said, Ron, is that teaching children the correct terms for human genitalia is “creepy” and he used an example of a 6 year-old talking to his/her parents about another student’s vulva. That example suggests the sex-ed curriculum will ask children to discuss the genitalia of tgeir classmates. It won’t. I agree with Ezra that if his child is talking about a classmate’s vulva, that is creepy. But it is just as creepy if the child talks about his classmate’s genitalia using anatomically incorrect terms like wee-wee or hole. Regardless what terms are used, that is the moment when good parents tell their child that genitalia are private, not to be discussed with third parties using any language. It is not okay to abuse children as long as you use code to describe it.

The curriculum teaches children what consent means, that healthy relationships are built on mutual respect and consent. Do you disagree, Ron? The curriculum does not teach children of any age to consent to illegal sex. That is preposturous and Ezra does not say it.

Ezra is a very skilled provocateur. He is skilled in formal semantics and uses his skills to skate close to the line in order to tap inherent prejudice in favour of a cause. He asks questions, often, to that end because statements could get him sued and with good cause.

Ezra is wrong that the curriculum “goes into” six or seven genders by the time kids are 12 o 13. It teaches that at puberty, mpchildren may identify with a variety of genders … or may not. It teaches Aboriginal children may identify with the Native concept of two-spirits, an androgenous concept of godliness that is ancient culturally among First Nations as well as with Hindus and other faiths. It is not strictly the same as bisexual because of the spiritual element and because the place of the two-spirit in community is elevated due to its association with the gods. So, let’s see. Male heterosexual, female heterosexual, male homosexual, female homosexual, male bisexual, female bisexual, male transsexual, female transsexual, male intersex, female intersex … how many legally recognized genders is that? Six or seven sounds like a conservative number to me.

The point is to teach kids who are entering puberty not to panic if they experience arousal in the boys or girls room to same sex peers at the same time they experience arousal for opposite sex. It is intended to assure them such feelings are normal during puberty, that they aren’t going crazy. It will also offer support to those children scared out of their wits that their parents will reject them if they learn they have uncontrollable feelings of sexual attraction to same-sex peers. It is intended to teach them that suicide is not their only option. And for those student afraid their parents will kill them for honour reasons, it can offer them protection.

Ezra says sexualing children is a divisive question. That is intended to suggest that both the sex-ed curriculum and all who support the sex-ed curriculum want to sexualize children. But neither of those suggestions is true. The sex-ed curriculum does not sexualize children.

Nice try to paint me as a pedophile, Ron, but you failed. You should apologoze for trying to tar my character with the worst slur there is. But I won’t hold my breath.

Ron: are you actually reading Joan’s responses? Because she’s answered them all, and explained the rationale for her conclusions.
Dialogue means actually listening and responding to what your opponent says, not simply reiterating your own talking points in ever shriller tones.

Repost – removed duplicate text:
According to Ezra, “If sex-ed is ‘wedge issue’, its Kathleen Wynne’s own fault”. He concludes his post saying that it is Wynne who is the “extreme one”; she is the one “on the wrong side of the wedge”. So, JOANABERNETHY, help us understand on which “side of the wedge” you are on.
According to Ezra, Wynne is the “extreme one” and “on the wrong side of the wedge”, because she "has surprised, ambushed, and forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed curriculum for children of tender years.” JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with that general assessment by Ezra?
To support his position that Wynne “forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed curriculum for children of tender years”, Ezra gives the example that, “Starting right at Grade 1; 6-year olds will be told technical terms for body parts”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that this makes the program “extreme”?
As well, Ezra says, Wynne’s sex-ed program, “Moves to talking about sexual consent when kids are not even lawfully allowed to have sex.”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that this makes the program “extreme”?
As well, Ezra notes that Wynne’s sex-ed program, “goes into what, six or seven genders by the time kids are 12-13. It is crazy time, and the thing is, that it’s forced on parents”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that going into “six or seven genders by the time kids are 12-13” is “crazy” and makes the program “extreme”?
Finally, Ezra says, “It is a divisive question. Either you believe in sexualizing 6-year olds or you don’t…Many questions in life are yes or no, on or off, black or white. You can’t split the difference”. So, bottom line, JOANABERNETHY, on which “side of the wedge” do you fall? Do you, like Kathleen Wynne, believe it is appropriate to be “sexualizing 6-year olds” or do you not?

Liza – who said the sex-ed curriculum is “the solution” (you mean, like a final solution?) for sex abuse of children on FN reserves?

As you know, many FN families are very successful as are many reserves and not all FN parents abuse their children. The Ontaio sex-ed curriculum will give all children, on and off reserve, the knowledge and skills required to appreciate what is and is not abuse. They need that, Liza, not to be perfect or cured but to reduce the numbers of suicides among abused and FN children.

According to Ezra, “If sex-ed is ‘wedge issue’, its Kathleen Wynne’s own fault”. He concludes his post saying that it is Wynne who is the “extreme one”; she is the one “on the wrong side of the wedge”. So, JOANABERNETHY, help us understand on which “side of the wedge” you are on.
According to Ezra, Wynne is the “extreme one” and “on the wrong side of the wedge”, because she "has surprised, ambushed, and forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed curriculum for children of tender years.” JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with that general assessment by Ezra?
To support his position that Wynne “forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed According to Ezra, “If sex-ed is ‘wedge issue’ its Kathleen Wynne’s own fault”. He concludes his post saying that Wynne is the “extreme one” and she is the one “on the wrong side of the wedge”. So, JOANABERNETHY, help us understand on which “side of the wedge” you are on.
According to Ezra, Wynne the “extreme one” and she is the one “on the wrong side of the wedge”, because “Wynne has surprised, ambushed and forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed curriculum for children of tender years.”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with that assessment by Ezra?
To support his position that Wynne “forced on Ontario parents a new and extreme sex-ed curriculum for children of tender years”, Ezra gives the example that, “Starting right at Grade 1; 6-year olds will be told technical terms for body parts”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that this makes the program “extreme”?
As well, Ezra says, Wynne’s sex-ed program, “Moves to talking about sexual consent when kids are not even lawfully allowed to have sex.”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that this makes the program “extreme”?
As well, Ezra notes that Wynne’s sex-ed program, “goes into what, six or seven genders by the time kids are 12-13. It is crazy time, and the thing is, that it’s forced on parents”. JOANABERNETHY, do you agree with Ezra’s assessment that going into “six or seven genders by the time kids are 12-13” is “crazy” and makes the program “extreme”?
Finally, Ezra says, “It is a divisive question. Either you believe in sexualizing 6-year olds or you don’t…Many questions in life are yes or no, on or off, black or white. You can’t split the difference”. So, bottom line, JOANABERNETHY, on which “side of the wedge” do you fall? Do you, like Kathleen Wynne, believe it is appropriate to be “sexualizing 6-year olds” or do you not?

Greg, you’ve confirmed, with commendable frankness, that you don’t care whether or not your news sources lie to you. I found that very helpful in understanding your approach to “news”. Sorry if I seemed brusque: I’m just a little old school when it comes to journalistic standards.